Game Industry Has Lost Its 'Spark'? 180
Gamasutra is running a short interview with game designer Chris Crawford. The discussion in the article centers around Crawford's assertion that the games industry is no longer a creative place. "I haven't even seen any new ideas pop up. The industry is so completely inbred that the people working in it aren't even capable of coming up with new ideas anymore. I was appalled, for example, at the recent GDC. I looked over the games at the Independent Games Festival and they all looked completely derivative to me." I'm not sure I agree. What do you think? Is there anything creative left in the games industry, or are we going to be playing Halo 6 and Final Fantasy XVII ten years from now?
Enough Already (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Enough Already (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but only after the refractory period [wikipedia.org].
Re:Enough Already (Score:2)
Everything is Derivative.. (Score:4, Insightful)
But when you focus on what games have similar, you tend to completly miss what makes them unique.
Re:Everything is Derivative.. (Score:2)
Re:Everything is Derivative.. (Score:2)
The gamble is not so great as you make it seem, and neither are the time investments. Many "pop" CD's get thrown together in a month or so with pre-written songs, and pre-laid tracks. Sure there are some games/movies/CD's that are stil
Almost there (Score:1)
Re:Almost there (Score:2)
Which is impossible. The fundamental difference between current games and those of the past is that current ones are 3-dimensional, while past ones were 2-dimensional. You can make the graphics for a 2-dimensional game simply by drawing, but a 3-dimensional game requires a 3D modelling program, and they are, to put it frankly, horrible in the
Re:Already there! (Score:2)
Sure, you can make a game cheap (or even for free, if you don't count your own time as money). But it won't have fancy detailed 3D graphics, since those take more time and effort to make than a single person can afford. And it won't have an orchestral soundtract since orchestras also cost money. It won't have voice acting, since, guess wha
Agreed (Score:1, Redundant)
CC: I haven't even seen any new ideas pop up. The industry is so completely inbred that the people working in it aren't even capable of coming up with new ideas anymore.
FF is a bad example (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:1)
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:1)
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:2)
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:3, Insightful)
The game is the game, if it can't stand up by itself, then it's not any good.
Re:FF is a bad example (Score:2)
Well lets see
And yeah
Duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Eve
Re:Duh (Score:2)
There are a lot more differences between Madden 2005 and 2006, than Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man. Both keep the same core gameplay with AI tweaks and graphics updates. But Madden also included ways for the player to interact.
Part of this has been the move from algorithmic-generated, dynamic situations to static "content" to be consumed (which gives us the relatively recent notion that a game can be "completed," and is itself a tremendous shame)
The fas
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Not so. For Ms. Pac-Man cannot be beaten with patterns like Pac-Man can, which at high, and even middle, levels of play makes it a fundamentally different game. Meanwhile Madden 2k5 and 2k6 are still, ultimately, football. It is possible that AI tweaks could make it a different game, although I doubt it in this case. Graphic updates, however, c
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Essentially this is an AI tweak to make the game more challenging, same thing they do for every Madden Game.
Meanwhile Madden 2k5 and 2k6 are still, ultimately, football. It is possible that AI tweaks could make it a different game, although I doubt it in this case.
Essentially Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are maze collection games (just like loadrunn
Re:Duh (Score:2)
There are two ways I can attack this statement:
1. Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man have much less "space" between the player and the design. When it comes down to it Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are their AI, so changing it makes a much bigger difference in a game than one based upon what is ultimately a complex real-world analogue. It's not a difference that should sustain more than one sequel, but it is substanti
Re:Duh (Score:2)
Which is my point. Pac-Man went through the same evolutionary transition that Madden games have. Taking advantage of better graphics and technology to add little bits to gameplay. None of the sequels in both cases (Pac-Man and Madden) is revolutionary compared to its predecessor, however, comparing titles several years apa
Re:Duh (Score:2)
But no, I don't buy your point here. Super Pac-Man and Pac N Pal do not add little bits, there are major rule changes in these games. And it's also worth noting that Ms. Pac-Man, the first sequel, was the last truly popular Pac-Man game.
Getting back to your orignal statements that "knockoffs are the industry" it has been so since
Re:Duh (Score:2)
a) navigate a maze to collect all the items
b) dodge enemies
c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies
Adding keys and such increases the challenge, and requires some new thinking, but doesn't break the core rules
Just as Madden remains football, but introduction of features like:
analog passing - requires the player not just to identify passing target but also judge timing and distance
sprint button, spin, highstep - prevent being tackled with correct timing
Re:Duh (Score:2)
a) navigate a maze to collect all the items
b) dodge enemies
c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies
Objection #1: I suggest that this also describes many first-person shooters. I submit that a description that allows a FPS to be confused with Pac-Man is too simplistic.
Objection #2: Both Super Pac-Man and Pac-N-Pal add fundamental elements that challenge each of these three points. In Pac N Pal, another character roams the maze and collects the objects you
Re:Duh (Score:2)
This comment leads me to believe that you in fact don't play Madden games. Those are just a handful of features that HAVE been added over the years. The fact that they shove a game out every year doesn't mean the game hasn't change
Re:Duh (Score:2)
I don't play many football games, period. It is true I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of when each Madden introduced each feature (which I do with many other games). There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem here: if you don't like the games you don't play much of them which makes it hard to argue why you don't play them. But that does not mean the reasons I don't play them are not valid, nor does it mean I'm ignorant of the
And that's not necessarily good (Score:2)
Yes, but that does not make it good or interesting to anyone with even the minimal intelligence needed to notice the verbatim copy.
E.g., yes, movies do the same, but that's exactly why movies have lost my interest long ago. Every single freakin' genre has been reduced to one standard script, with _maybe_ a couple of standard variants. So if you watch
This is why we go for MMORPGs now (Score:2, Insightful)
So game designers have pretty much given up. Instead of having a game to challenge you, they publish games which allow people to challenge each other.
They have taken this to the point of laziness though. Game content is suffering in favour of the almighty online.
It would be nice to see a game that did
Perhaps... (Score:3, Insightful)
We want games released quickly, with simple twist free stories and game play we are comfortable with.
Look at the outrage over MGS2... people will revolt if you try to inovate so it makes more sense to sell the sequels.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to look at this as a problem, then yes, it's clearly the fault of the consumers. People only buy FPS, RTS and MMORPG games, so that's exactly what they're going to get. Developers won't make games that won't sell. I don't know what you mean by the MGS2 outrage, but I can imagine what would have happened if Half-Life 2 would have been radically different from the first game... the fans would have probably been angry. They don't want change, yet at the same time they cry about the lack of innovation.
Chris Crawford seems like a person who contributes nothing, but complains a lot. He also has some very strange ideas about things:
If new ideas don't go anywhere, what's the point of innovation?
Well gee, let's think about this: during the 80s, the industry was pretty much getting started, and many of the genres we have today didn't even exist. Also, the primitive graphics required developers to come up with a solid gameplay idea. Nowadays you can easily get away with recycling an old idea, but repackacking it with good graphics and sound. Of course, it's not like they didn't recycle ideas in the 80s...
Sims? World of Warcraft? Second Life? Sports games? Racing games? I should think that they reach out to the "general public" (what does this even mean, exactly?) well enough.
According to Mobygames, he hasn't done anything related to video games for fourteen years, except that storytronics stuff. Also, "innovation" is a retarded buzz word that doesn't mean anything, just like "next gen."
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
It is indeed possible to pin blame on consumers, if you take the view that the true worth of a thing is decided retroactively, years later.
Already pawn shops are littered with outdated sports games, and a used game store I visited just a week ago had two clearance prices: one for old SNES and GENESIS titles, and another, lower one
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
Nope, ever hear Tomogachis (The Sims) or MUDs/MUSHs (Second Life)?
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
Both of the later games draw from earlier things (as all created things must), but both these things add substantial new elements that makes them greatly different from their predecessors.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
What in the Sims is substantially new in terms of innovation? It is very much like a tomogatchi. You tell your little character what to do to keep them happy and you can buy things for your little character. Adding complexity does not equal innovation.
As for Second Life there was some innovation in being able to excha
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
This is not necessarily the case. The Sims is different in these days (not a comprehensive list):
- It discards the "always on" real-time component of Tamagotchi.
- Having discarded that, it also doesn't have to be portable, so it can be played on computer.
- There is a house design component, and figuring out good paths for your Sims to use is a major part of the game.
- The upgrading of house components and careers.
- Resource management, in the areas of time and mo
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
Re:Perhaps... (Score:2)
Hm, understood.
In my view, innovation means the creation of new kinds of gameplay. I don't necessarily mean that all games must be completely different from each other, but most games now are ultimately older games with different data sets.
The best way to understand what innovation could be is by example, and some of the best examples I can think of come from Elec
Sad to say, you've got it wrong (Score:2)
The thing that matters is _profit_, not number of copies sold. Genre X can be more profitable than Genre Y for a miriad of reasons, even if Genre Y actually sells more copies.
E.g., read some interviews from Sierra and the like during the late 90's, when FPS and RTS exploded and Adventures nearly went extinct. Surely it was because everyo
Re:Sad to say, you've got it wrong (Score:2)
It was relevant as strictly an example of
A) how a major producer of one genre abandoned that genre, in spite of having a growing market and selling more copies than ever. And,
B) how profit and copies sold can be two very different things.
And, you know, taken from the mouth of those who were one of the two biggest names in the adventure game industry at the time.
But, in the end, it was there just as an example that you can't always just blame the demand side of t
Re:Perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Chris Crawford seems like a person who contributes nothing, but complains a lot."
He has published over a dozen games and written five books on the subject [wikipedia.org] to say nothing of founding the Computer Game Developers' Conference [wikipedia.org], an event which started in his living room.
When you have contributed as much nothing as he has, then you can complain all you like.
One word: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:One word: (Score:1, Funny)
Completely unoriginal, its just a ripoff of darwin.
Re:One word: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E.V.O.:_Search_for_E
Re:One word: (Score:2, Interesting)
If Spore really works as advertised then the reason it will be somewhat different is because everything is procedural. You get to design your own creature and the system makes it walk or swim or whatever based on the mechanics of the body parts. It's not limited to a preset num
Re:One word: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One word: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One word: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One word: (Score:3, Insightful)
And don't give me crap about "goals". Many, many games have multiple goals and allow the player to choose which goals to pursue. In the Sims, there is no reason for the player to make any gameplay decisions unless they have a goal in mind, so the game is still goal-oriented.
Re:One word: (Score:2)
Re:One word: (Score:4, Insightful)
Next you can tell me that pinball has a mechanic -- you must hit markers to get points, and you lose if the ball falls. This is true, but it is ALSO true of all the games which you are choosing to call "worlds": in the Sims, you must play well to obtain goals.
SimEarth had a win condition and was easy to lose, so I assume you would call it a game. But if we removed the win condition, the gameplay and source of fun would be identical. Why would we reclassify it due to a small change that didn't change the nature of the experience?
I could get behind a statement that a "game" must involve the concepts of success and failure, but this definition doesn't exclude the Sims, or Animal Crossing, or much of anything that's called a game. It would exclude something like Elektroplankton, but I think few people consider that a game anyway.
Who cares what this guy thinks? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meanwhile, he wants to sell his books and push his "Storytronics"... geez, the 1970s called and want their cool innovative name back.
Re:Who cares what this guy thinks? (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, even the '70s don't want that one. They were just calling up to wax nostalgic about Pong.
You're just not reading it right. (Score:1)
Re:Who cares what this guy thinks? (Score:4, Interesting)
He was good in his day, but he just doesn't have it any more. His ideas for "innovation" are basically old style adventure games with dialogue trees. I apologize, he did have one idea that was more of the Sims than of an adventure game. At best, his ideas are TES4:Oblivion, but that's pushing it.
He's done, his day is over, but he just doesn't want to admit it.
Or? (Score:2)
I also believe that we'll be playing some version of Halo and Final Fantasy in 10 years.
I'd be willing to bet on Madden 2016 too.
Some series will just live forever in some form.
Re:Or? (Score:2)
Will the public remember John Madden in 2016? Are you sure they won't change the name of that series? I'm sure there will be football, but "madden", not so sure.
It's a mix of many problems (Score:3, Insightful)
When you try to go for something new, you first of all have way higher development costs. And you also have the risk that what looked good on paper really stinks in bits and bytes.
Then, we have the problem the movie industry is facing as well: We think in genres. So when you now create a game, your player will try to find a genre to fit it into. We all have our habits and our "pet genres", some love business sims, some like shooters. Should you now create a game that is some sort of mix of genres, something that goes down the middle of two things (i.e. "something new"), you will probably get the response that it isn't what the player wanted, because it has those elements of games he does not enjoy.
So yes, we're kinda stuck with the "same old". And, let's be honest here, who could hold it against the game companies that they don't want to take a risk if it isn't needed? If the risk-less sequel of some game sells just as good as a risky new idea would, why bother going for the higher risk?
Genres aren't that big a problem (Score:2)
1. genres aren't _that_ limitting
E.g., "Europa 1400 -- The Guild" is technically a "business sim", but that didn't really prevent it from mixing inter-personal relationships, a bit of politics, a bit of history lesson, even a bit of RTS, etc, into the mix.
E.g., between Europa Universalis and Hearts Of Iron 2, Paradox's games have technically been strategy in real time, but they're not even vaguely similar to C&C or Warcraft.
2. it's not like people outright refuse new genres. Quite
All about the money (Score:1)
Snake Oil (Score:2)
GS: On that note, can you explain the concept of Storytronics? If there is such a way to give a brief description.
CC: It's interactive storytelling.
Okay, Either I saw this in the movie, Big [imdb.com], or we've been trying for this all along. Anyone who's played an "Open Ended" game such as Chrono Triger [wikipedia.org] knows what mutiple endings try for. Blood Omen:Legacy of Kain [wikipedia.org] had an open ending where you could be good or bad guy.
This guy is huge pessimist (admits it in the article). He just seems
Re:Snake Oil (Score:2)
Re:Snake Oil (Score:2)
Re:Snake Oil (Score:2)
I can think of a few (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that there might be a bit of "time compression" going on in this article. Original games were few and far between 10-20 years ago, too. I certainly remember back in the 8 and 16-bit era when it seemed like every single game put out by anybody for any system ever was a side scroller.
Besides, video gaming's youth is gone. I don't see why it's such a big deal that so many games resemble other games nowadays - it was easy to try new ideas in 1985 when not so many ideas had been tried. I'd like to see the people who whine about lack of originality try to spend some time coming up with a new idea that's good. Maybe folks could try harder, but (1)I seriously doubt that nobody is trying (2)trying to sell a formula that's known to sell is part of business, and it's not going to change. You might as well shake your fist at the sky for raining, it'd be just as useful.
Of course, an article that says, "Gee, it's really hard to come up with novel games" probably wouldn't sell as well as yet another jaded guy bitching about how things were better in the past. (How original.)
Money is the big evil (Score:1)
Hilarity Ensues (Score:2, Interesting)
It's a neverending cycle (Score:2, Insightful)
My POV (Score:2)
Of course, it's possible that Games just peaked with Outhouse and have gone downhill ever since.
Crawford is a Troll (Score:2)
And, if Slashdot is anything like GDC06, he'll get his wish and there will be a hundred "No it isn't" posts... *sigh*
Kinda like the Movie industry? (Score:1)
Another who doesn't know what "innovative" means (Score:3, Interesting)
To that i say bull...
Games don't lack innovation, people fail to even try the most innovative games or to even find the innovation in a game.
People always seem to think that "innovation" should equal "revolution" in gaming. People are just waiting for the "next" big thing that is just isn't coming anytime soon:
- Text-based games to static-graphic games.
- Static-graphic games to dynamic 2D graphics with sound.
- Dynamic 2D graphic with sound games to polygonal "3D" games.
- Polygonal "3D" games to ???
It's the ??? that people confuse with innovation.
True "Innovation" comes in small doses...
A game like Halo: yes, it's YET another FPS. It introduced a couple of concepts that made for overall good gameplay.
A game like the Original Doom: very similar to other games that came before, it introduced better level designs and a perspective of height.
The game Life Line: Used almost exclusively vocal commands to control a character in a survival horror game. Innovative... even if it failed to work properly.
The game Indigo Prophecy: Multiple endings to every scene. Player action impact on overall story. It was done before, but this game took it to an entire new level. It was a main aspect of the game rather than a simple afterthought.
Other developpers take these small innovations and include them in their games... Over the course of years, this is the innovation that amount to something.
Comparing Top Spin 2 to the old Tennis game on the NES, i can't help but think that it's not only graphics that have changed. The gameplay has too.
Re:Another who doesn't know what "innovative" mean (Score:2)
It's kinda true... (Score:1)
Has Zonk ever actually *played* a FF game? (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, more to the point, played more than one? There are certain elements that bind them together, sure (chocobos, basic battle concepts, some guy named Cid who likes technology/airships), but each numbered Final Fantasy game is completely different from the preceding ones--new characters, new stories, whole new world, largely different magic/skill/whatever systems (FF X-2 and the FF VII Compilation aren't really "numbered FF games").
Just because they all bear the same name doesn't mean there's more than that linking them. Some people think that's a bad thing; personally, I like every FF game I've played, the similarities and the differences.
Dan Aris
Re:Has Zonk ever actually *played* a FF game? (Score:2)
Nope. Wrong. Changing from Fire, Fire 2, Fire 3 to Fire, Fira, Firaga doesn't count as being a new magic system. Your mage will always be weilding Fire, Ice, and Bolt against enemies. It may be called something else (Fire, Blizzard, Thunder), but it's the same thing. It's always Cure to heal and Esuna to cure. (?!) Same magic system, every single game.
Same spell names != same magic system.
I will grant that the basic makeup of the magic systems are all pretty much the same--they are all element-based, wi
-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT. (Score:3, Interesting)
- the games industry is dying
- there's no creativity in games any more
- nobody's buying games
- nobody likes games
?Huh?
Yet WoW has passed 6 million users, an utterly-unheard-of number in the MMOG world. The computer/electronic games industry (which didn't EXIST prior to what, 1975?) is now bigger than Hollywood. More people than ever play games, to the point that we're generationally reaching the point where the 'mainstream' of society are electronic gamers.
If this is failure, what's success?
Like any industry, in it's fledgling decade there was a great deal of innovation (much of it sucked), success (and failure), and a non-zero-sum universe of customers. There used to be companies like Studebaker, Packard, Nash, and Hudson, too. Like every industry, there are periods of innovation and expansion, and periods of consolidation and centralization. It's the capitalist equivalent of breathing.
If we're exhaling now (and I'm not convinced we are), relax. The industry will inhale soon enough.
Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT. (Score:2)
> If this is failure, what's success?
1. There is more then one definition of success. Success = Popular, is only one definition.
2. Popularity != Quality.
TV (Reality Shows), Fast-Food (McDonalds), etc, all prove that.
WoW isn't a great game -- it is "good enough" and better then most other MMORPGs. Is is fun game? Yes. While it's yet-another-mmorpg that streamlines most of the annoying problems others still have, it still lacks "rich game design."
i.e.
Character t
Re:-4, Unjustified and REDUNDANT. (Score:2)
Considering that WoW has only sold 6.5 million copies, I have a hard time believing that number.
If you want to put that in perspective, Super Mario Brothers 1 has sold over 40 million copies.
Wait for the Wii (Score:2)
Much as I respect Crawford in some ways (I own his books) I have to think he's a bit insulated. There certainly is progress, it's just slow and bursty as usual. Back in the 80s it wa
Adventure gaming? (Score:2, Insightful)
If something new and good would come to market... (Score:3, Funny)
A visual interpretation of Chris' stance (Score:2)
Re:A visual interpretation of Chris' stance (Score:2)
People are just looking in the wrong direction (Score:2)
Nintendo, on the other hand, is just pumping me full of adrenaline these days. Pick up a DS. Geez, so many new concepts and ideas are going on. So many brilliant games. Trauma Center, Pheonix Wright: Ace Attourney, Lost in Blue, Brain Age...a lot of traditional type g
Chris Crawford unhappy? Unpossible! (Score:2)
Whenever I see a statement from him I know it will be about how bad he thinks gaming is today. Just once I would love to see a statement from Crawford that was positive. His const
Bound to happen (Score:3, Insightful)
The more money is involved, the less creative it gets. Because creativity is a risk and risk scares investors away.
So, a lot of people tap their games's ideas from the little pond of type of games that are successful like RPG, Shooters and GTA style.
As soon as games starts fading out (if they ever do) then we will see creativity because developpers will fight themselves to obtain funding from the rarer investors.
I disagree sir (Score:3, Insightful)
High budget (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:High budget (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:High budget (Score:2)
The other barrier to creating games these days is the complexity and time needed. Even a modest 2D game can require people with different skills- artists, programmers, musicians etc. Back in the Spectrum/C64 days when sprites were crude mosaics it was much easier. These days to be a one ma
I have enough great and original ideas (Score:2)
Um...Wii? (Score:2)
I do agree however the industry has become rather derivative. Seriously, THREE Final Fantasy XIII's? Ok, that series may be ready to die now (especially since Final Fantasy 8 was the last truly good one). Halo is great, but it's one of a bazillion FPS's (I
Movies (Score:2)
Authorized development (Score:2)
Re:Authorized development (Score:2)
Something I have thought about on occasion would be to develop a game-centric Linux LiveCD, ideally designed around a micro-atx form factor motherboard of some sort. Ultimately, your distribution web site would have a "recommended
Re:Sore loser (Score:4, Insightful)